"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."*
Adrian Rogers, 1931

Why didn't you post this in debate forum, or is this anecdotal statement a full representation of your positions on how everything should work? Does everyone in chat who identifies with and even supports those particularly divisive TV pundits really feel that the world would be a perfect place under their philosophies?

And actually, the reason that date mistake probably happened is because most every reference I found online uses 1931. So, that's awful on two counts:

-- People just cut and paste quotes? Eloquent.
-- I wonder why that 1931 date just _happened_ to be left on so many references? Maybe because them were Depression days...or...or...back then ALL quotes were perfectly correct, golden, and true. Right? Right?

Huh, so it isn't just the media that's elitist and liberal, eh? Good ol' Capitalism doing what it does best -- yanking the purse strings.

Wait, does this mean right-wing, daft windbags can't just say whatever they want anymore? That's a shame. Then again, advertisers have distanced themselves from leftists for decades going all the way back to the McCarthy era. Que sera, oui? Or is that "touche"?

I wish sut, bast and you other people would come into chat. Chat has become a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of conservative thought, it's so bad that I seem to be the only purveyor of any ideas outside that realm. And I subscribe to a more moderate, middle of the road set of ideals. I struggle not to respond with my own knee-jerk reactionary statements in response to their extreme ideals.

Thinking it over, reading the quote with a more analytical eye, I can see where it is coming from. But it fails on a simple, sophistry-laden angle:

No one ever said we could multiply wealth by dividing it.

Not directly, anyway (aybe not even ever). The quote, as written, presents a false dichotomy -- as if there is only one way to multiply wealth, and as if dividing wealth is the only thing being tried. It's a classic obfuscation technique.

I could have just as easily said, "One cannot supply goat's milk to the elderly by dividing wealth."

A very true, but equally inane, observation.

The inanity pretty much goes for the rest of the quote, too. Read each line, and then ask yourself: "Is this really what is happening?" Yes, IF half of the people got the idea they didn't have to work, and the other half then felt non-plussed by that, it would be dire, indeed.

Luckily, there is little to show that is what is happening, and even less to show it relates to wealth distribution. Unless, of course, someone wants to start posting facts instead of chronologically-challenged quotes from someone I've never heard of.

I only need to read a lot of the threads around here to know that the reason chat is the way it is is because people really believe this stuff. And there's nothing I can do to change that, or even find common ground upon. Again, sorry. :\

But I have heard legends of Bast changing the mind of an ultra-right-wing, gun-toting, weiner-eating (No, really! Oscar Mayer!) co-worker before.

I don't think I'm an idiot, and I feel that I can argue most topics using logic and not having to resort to logic fallacies or emotion to do it. But nobody ever listens, they simply tell me that I'm wrong and I've obviously fallen under the spell of some particularly juicy liberal rationalization and only if I were to listen harder to conservative ideas, I would see the light.

I don't even identify with most liberal thought. It makes me sad and frustrated.

There is no use debating with someone who is only interested in talking about themselves, or the Right Path they are Upon. In fact, it's worse than useless. It's debilitating, wrong, and the very antithesis to life, intelligence, and freedom.

At this point, I can only assume those who don't wish to talk about things want it that way. Then, I go find other people to talk to.

If you read the article Dude posted, the Glenn Beck program is losing advertisers, however FoxNews Channel is not seeing any change in revenue as they are shifting ads to other programs on that channel.

Sutekh, while I do agree that the quote is a little over the top, the basic message is correct. You cannot overtax those making more money in order to help raise up people earning less. The statement that "You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it," is absolutely correct. It just depends on how you interpret it, it has to be looked at a little more abstract. Dividing the working man from his money by tax will not create riches for others. The classic Washington idea seems to be to create big new programs to do this or that for people will make everything great. However, our national debt continues to sky-rocket and someday we will all be broke trying to pay off the interest on all these cash-for-clunkers giveaways, stimulus checks, and business bailouts that are all the rage.

AdminQBVerifex 12:02 AM EDT
"I don't think I'm an idiot, and I feel that I can argue most topics using logic and not having to resort to logic fallacies or emotion to do it. But nobody ever listens, they simply tell me that I'm wrong and I've obviously fallen under the spell of some particularly juicy liberal rationalization and only if I were to listen harder to conservative ideas, I would see the light. I don't even identify with most liberal thought. It makes me sad and frustrated."

OB, who is pouncing on Ranger? He isn't mentioned anywhere in the thread other than the OP and Artemis helping explain the date (which was good, since I was genuinely confused as to where the quote came from). And since Ranger posted later but didn't mention where he got the quote, what he likes about it, etc, I assume he is OK with that, too.

I've been (trying, anyway) to discuss the quote, and to find out where it comes from and why it is important. I can't even talk about that without being considered a "pouncer"? Sheesh, indeed. :\

I guess by your definition, I'm about to "pounce" on Vaynard now, too...

I agree that dividing wealth does not "multiply" it, and I have never said it does. Nor have I ever heard any serious economist, democrat, liberal, or republican say that it could. No one thinks wealth distribution is a magic ATM for cash, per se.

I agree that overtaxing is not good. As I said in a previous post, if a full half of people were expecting handouts while the other half paid all the taxes, that would be terrible indeed. It would also be terrible if pork entrails rained from the sky and landed in my mouth. But none of those things has happened, so I am still trying to find the usefulness of the quote? I mean, several European countries have higher taxes and a far more socialist structure than that of the United States, and yet they appear to be intact. For example, why is Sweden called "Sweden" and not "Lazyrichku" (that's Swedish for "land of long welfare lines and irate wealthy people"). How is this possibly working in such places, when Adrian has clearly told us this is the "beginning of the end of _any_ nation" (underscores added for editorial emphasis)? His name should be Little. Chicken Little.

As for debt, what works, and what doesn't work, I don't have an answer. History has shown that subsidies and spending can help (think New Deal, with a nice kick from WW2). History has also shown that supply-side economics can help (Reaganomics, with a nice kick from Cold War defense spending). And what history has ALWAYS shown is that events in the world, culture, and climate can turn the economy far more than any one policy or ideal (WW2, space race, Vietnam, OPEC, Fall of the USSR, 9-11, etc.). This, too, tends to render the quote somewhat impotent.

If you take the economic power of the quote away, and tone down the hyberbole, what are you left with? I'm seeing pretty much nada at best, and a diatribe from a dead, far-right Baptist minister lamenting current tax structure using Debate 101 rhetoric.

Ranger, "self-explanatory" in what regard? As in, who is the "self" who made it, and why should I agree or care? If I want someone to list a bunch of trite exaggerations, I can go into any third-grade classroom and spend some time, no? Or do you actually believe 50% of all Americans do not work and the other 50% pay all the taxes? That part is self-explanatory?

If I said, "Obama's health plan ideas are easy to understand and self-explanatory", would you let that stand without any sort of debate? You hide behind the "this is evident" nonsense a lot. It's disappointing. Many of us have things we think are obvious and self-evident. Others disagree. Discourse ensues.

I have never said I don't understand the quote. You are changing words around for your convenience. That's not even Debate 101. That's Remedial Debate. Summer school.

There is a difference between something being comprehensible and being self-explanatory. Since you state yourself that what the quote depicts is not the state of affairs currently (and haven't a shred of proof or solid reasoning to predict it will become as such), the quote doesn't explain anything real. Therefore, the quote is fictional. How can a construct that appears to be making dire, real remarks on a situation that is NOT real be "self-explanatory"? What is it explaining? At best, it is a platitude.

Maybe that's why it isn't self-explanatory. I already know everything the quote is stating, and so am wondering what more I need to "get"?

"I wish sut, bast and you other people would come into chat. Chat has become a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of conservative thought, it's so bad that I seem to be the only purveyor of any ideas outside that realm. And I subscribe to a more moderate, middle of the road set of ideals. I struggle not to respond with my own knee-jerk reactionary statements in response to their extreme ideals."

i do wish we could keep the political and religious discussions out of chat and limited to the debate forum. that way people that do not want to partake in our little discussions can actually ignore it all! jon has been more flexible about allowing these types of discussions as of late, but some control on our part should likely be exercised.

i would like to see kicks and fines for discussing religion and politics in chat and fines for placing such posts in other forums than the debate/discussion one. hefty fines too, not those namby-pamby fines we usually see! ; )

Me too Blubben but that has never stopped me posting in the past so here goes (the trick is to just spew it out and click post, if I start thinking too much so many ifs, buts and maybes arise that getting it down in a linear fashion using words seems impossible :)

5 best sentences ever to come out of a christmas cracker ?

Probably the 5 best sentences ever for those possesing a vague notion that redistribution of wealth is bad (generally for themselves)and understandably like to have that view validated in a misleading and simplistic way rather than thinking for themselves.

I don't deny it contains some grains of truth.

"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity"

Sounds reasonable, rather nebulous though, not sure about the value of relating this to the real world. Really legislating the wealthy out of prosperity would be political suicide in the western world.

"What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else."

Can't deny this one however given that one persons remuneration for doing work often bears little relation to the true value of that work to a society or to the amount of work they actually did it doesn't seem unreasonable to redistribute some of that money.

"When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. "

living in the UK I have seen the effects of a comprehensive welfare system 1st hand. Yes it has resulted in a fairly large number of people living off the state (and maybe working in the grey/black economy) who have no interest in getting a regular job. This number is no where near 1/2 the potential working population nor has it lead to large numbers of working people simply giving up or moving to a country without a safety net for those out of work etc.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it

This nicely distills the previous sentences and provides a nice catch phrase for those who like talking crap down the pub.
Is it implying that redistribution of wealth is designed to create more prosperity? that it should create more prosperity? I thought it was a moral obligation. Are we supposed to value human endeavor largely by what profit it generates? Greed is good, right?

RD says: "living in the UK I have seen the effects of a comprehensive welfare system 1st hand. Yes it has resulted in a fairly large number of people living off the state (and maybe working in the grey/black economy) who have no interest in getting a regular job. This number is no where near 1/2 the potential working population nor has it lead to large numbers of working people simply giving up or moving to a country without a safety net for those out of work etc."

I'll second this and add: I've had need of the Welfare System due to unemployment, I've also paid a lot of money into the system through tax and national insurance. I've had plenty of reason to use our health system and am glad to be funding it. Where the system quite often falls down is not due to the burden of people 'abusing' the system, but more the diversion of funding into areas such as placing our military into the Middle East. And even they're underfunded presently.

I can't get my head around the right wing Christians who seem to be completely opposed to helping out their fellow man or woman and who think greed and warfare are Godly. It leaves me feeling sick to my stomach.

"I can't get my head around the right wing Christians who seem to be completely opposed to helping out their fellow man or woman and who think greed and warfare are Godly. It leaves me feeling sick to my stomach. "

This is yet another irrational generalization.

I am Jewish but fall into Judeo-Christian principles of living.

In NO WAY am I opposed to helping my fellow man/woman. I do not think greed and welfare are godly.

And how dare you classify conservates this way. There are of course ultra conservative freaks as well as ultra liberal freaks.

However, if you look at the statistics, which I can quote if you want, the charity contributions of the conseratives far outweights that of liberals. I can safely state that I have given more in charity donations of time and money than everyone in CB with perhaps 1 or 2 people at most. And I am very conservative.

I am all for helping those in need, however, I am against not helping those who do not even try to help themselves.

My father was the son of a milkman. He grew up very poor. However, with hard work he build a business and allowed me to go to school.

Nobody gave him a free ride, he worked and earned it. As I expect everyone in the US to try to do.

Yes, some people do need help. And there are programs for it. They can be tweaked, but this spending and spending is doing nothing except bankrupting our future.

Living in the US, and working in an lower socioeconomic area of Florida, I see all the attitudes of "give me more".

The idea of making the US a welfare state sickens me. Let people work for what they want, instead of expecting Obama to give it to them.

In fairness, JW, there are plenty of Christians who want Big Gov't out of their lives, and then give a lot to charity and their communities via private means. In that sense, their views are consistent AND moral. They ARE helping.

My only issue with that is focus. If a Pro-Life, anti-liberal, evangelical Christian gives someone money, odds are they are going to want the target of that cash to be Pro-Life, conservative, and Christian as well. (I am not saying there aren't plenty of completely selfless, non-expecting givers, they just get less press). It's the whole "white man's burden" thing. I dislike that, and such a viewpoint is actually NOT Christ-like. Jesus said again and again to his followers that you don't help your fellow man in order to have your own viewpoint amplified. You'll be rewarded later, so help your fellow human beings and then keep your trap shut about it.

I see much of the liberal agenda as simply an anonymous Samaritan system, thereby allowing the receiver of the help the dignity of unbiased support.

That's not to say I haven't internally rolled my eyes when seeing food stamps used to buy junk food or over-priced luxury foods (that I myself cannot choose to afford). But I still support the program, and don't want it ever to become something with strings attached (certainly not religious ones). Jesus has never been about tit-for-tat. Charity and evangelism should never, ever be forcefully linked, in my opinion.

So Ranger, when you give, you want to be sure that the target always meets your personal definitions of helping themselves and working for their future? That's fine, and your giving is still admirable (in my opinion). But that's not true charity. That's conditional charity, and it involves passing judgment.

Last I checked, judgment has no place in Judeo-Christian thinking, unless your name's "Yahweh".

I understand your viewpoint, and I agree that we should strive to build better citizens in our nation: good work ethics, respect, intelligence, strength of character. But I want to do that with education, not with fiscal control.

In summary, if your father had helped you with the money for school but told you that you had to become a lawyer (assuming you wouldn't want to be a lawyer), would you have accepted his help? Would you have considered that to be a truly giving act? I am very glad you had a supportive father and that his (and your) hard work paid off. But not everyone has that situation, and for those folks, to accept help sometimes means accepting a forced path or ideal.

"I see much of the liberal agenda as simply an anonymous Samaritan system, thereby allowing the receiver of the help the dignity of unbiased support. "

It is very easy to say "give, give, give" when it is not your money being given.

And you type about Pro-Life, conservative, and Christian people being the benefactors of conservatives giving. That is garbage.

In the community where I live, 90+% are conservatives. We have projects and help a multitude of charities. Such as the AHA, ASPCA, habitat for humanity, breast cancer research (which kills more blacks more than whites), our local churches and temples among a multitude of charities we give to.

"For example, Americans would have to pay for mental health benefits and coverage for their "children" until the age of 26. While many Americans may want that kind of rich coverage, millions do not. So why impose these expensive plans on everybody?"

Good grief, calm down and take your martyr crown off. I never said anything irrational. I made a point about conditional giving, if that is what occurs. If completely unconditional giving occurs, then kudos. To you and other givers like you.

I'm not paying for the system? You must think I am in the 50% of Mr. Roger's quote jobless and waiting for a handout?

Talk about irrational. I'm paying for plenty of this. I've been continually employed for the last fifteen years, straight out of college, making a decent wage. And yeah, I pay my taxes.

OB, did you read JW's post on this thread, or any number of previous posts on other threads from people living in countries with nationalized care? All you've heard about are the queues?

Good link. If it is true that the freedom to keep existing plans is essentially mandated out of existence, then I disagree. But for the part about doctor choice -- well, I have a list of docs to choose from now, so that is about the same. Why HSA plans would be removed is also beyond me -- they seem smart to me.

I've actually not kept up with any of the other threads on the topic as of late - my internet's on the fritz, and I've hardly touched CB at all over the past 2 weeks - but I do intend to catch up on them.

However, if anyone from a country with nationalized healthcare, such as Canada or Britain, wants to chip in and save me the forum-digging and let me know how well the system works over there, the wait, etc. then that would be just splendid. I'm just sayin', all I seem to hear is that there are multiple-month waits even for what are often high priority cases.

Firstly Ranger, my opinion of right wing conservative Christians was based on both what I know of Rogers and his ilk, and members of my own family. None of which was aimed at you by the way and is from my experience far from a generalisation.

In other news regarding our health service we have to see a specialist for our little boy. This involves seeing our doctor who refers us. We saw our doctor on Wednesday this week and see the specialist next week. Queues for operations can be long - ie several weeks, but we also have the option of going private - if we can afford it.

In other words we have the freedom you have, and our own on top of that. And some of the best medical staff in the world in my experience. Including people from the States who come here for our training and then take that home.

"However, if you look at the statistics, which I can quote if you want, the charity contributions of the conseratives far outweights that of liberals. I can safely state that I have given more in charity donations of time and money than everyone in CB with perhaps 1 or 2 people at most. And I am very conservative."

While it's great that you're giving to charities, how much does that let you off taxes?

Still, it's a nice break. 33%? That isn't too far from where I am at, bracket-wise, usually, in the 28%.

I guess how much we are each paying for Obama's socialism is closer than you think...

Tax breaks are pretty substantial on things like charitable giving, mortgage interest, and other itemized deductions. My wife and I will be seeing a substantial kick-back next tax season, especially with buying a new house (and paying a point on that mortgage up front).

I do get a nice tax break from my mortgage, but I also pay quite a lot of taxes overall. While a large % of people pay no taxes.

Again, it is easy to say "give, give, spend, spend" when it is not your money your using.

Where I work, I see many people driving pimped out cars, talking on cell phones, large chains around their necks. But when it comes time to actually pay for their ER visit, they cry about not being able to afford it. People want it all, but want someone to give it to them.

I worked very hard to get where I am, do I not deserve to be able to enjoy the fruits of my effort?

But back to healthcare, you know what is one huge difference between the US and the rest of the world? Malpractice.

Obama is so dead set against tort reform. So medical costs are so high due to defensive medicine. As a radiologist I see it all the time. CTs and MRIs being ordered for nothing but protect ones own behind.

Another difference? The knife and gun clubs of St. Louis, Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, etc... Trauma is something we have in America that is barely evident in Canada, the UK, Sweden and other places with a single payer system.

"Where I work, I see many people driving pimped out cars, talking on cell phones, large chains around their necks."

Yes, THESE people are a drain on society and should learn to grow the heck up and prioritize their spending.

This is NOT an accurate representation of every poor person in America.

For someone who complains up and down about conservative stereotypes that you feel are unfair, you are by far the quickest on this forum to paint the other side with the most unfavorable and dishonest of colors. I've caught you doing this on several threads now, and still you continue.

health care reform has been a pretty big issue since at least the clinton administration, perhaps the conservatives should have done something for tort reform or even health care reform while they were in office, especially at first when they had the opportunity?

The malpractice issue probably deserves its own thread, no? If for no other reason than I am not very well educated in the issue so don't want to sully the waters here due to my ignorance. (not that I am the only one who can discuss it...)

Same thing goes for violence, weapon control, etc. Are you saying you would like more government in regards to controlling those issues, or just let it all go the way it is going? Keep the trauma, keep the current medical system? Or something else entirely? Genuine questions, and I apologize if my ignorance has already muddied things up...

Yes, you should be able to enjoy your wealth. And you do. You have a plasma TV. I have a 36-inch non-HD (CRT) TV that is a little over a decade old. While my recent move would give me every excuse to ditch it and buy new up here in Madison, I am not doing so. (Hooray for movers!) Are you saying you are unable to live the quality of life you desire? If you are unable to live the life you want while losing 33% of your gross, taxable income, and I am able to live the life I want while losing 28% of my gross, taxable income, what is the difference there? Are you saying that 5% completely ruins your life, while somehow has no effect on mine? Someone making 33K a year pays 25%.

(Note, I am not even considering the fact that you make probably 3-4 times as much as me -- I'm discussing this solely on the basis of taxable income percentage.)

There something at work here other than just money and quality of life sentiments, and I'm not quite sure what it is.

Here is the tax rates for 2009 for a single person. Married people pay less if they together make 33k.

10% on income between $0 and $8,350

15% on the income between $8,350 and $33,950; plus $835

25% on the income between $33,950 and $82,250; plus $4,675

28% on the income between $82,250 and $171,550; plus $16,750

33% on the income between $171,550 and $372,950; plus $41,754

35% on the income over $372,950; plus $108,216

So as you can see, someone making 33k a year would pay only $4532 or less than 14%.

So I am sure there are people who think 35% is too low and the "rich" should be taxed 50% or more, like European countries. However, I thought this was America where it is a good thing to be successful and you can enjoy the benefits of hard work.

And Bast, if you want your own thread about Gun Control, fine. Stay out of this one then.

Obama says everyone over 250k a year is "rich" and deserves more taxes. That is not a debatable point.

If someone makes 100M, then taxing them 50% may be acceptable. But is taxing someone close to 60% if they make 400k a year acceptable? Since with all the city, state and federal taxes, that is what someone in California pays if Obama's health care supertax is enacted.

Personally I embrace the idea of a flat tax. Remove deductions and have a floor that if you make less than xxxx you pay no tax. Base the floor on a cost of living level or some other factor.

Sorry, goodness! I'm not a tax genius, I was going by the rate chart from Google concerning IRS tax rates. That's what I was going by. Anything more than raw numbers, and it's hard to know what the actual rate is. For all I know, you pay nothing -- maybe you have a really good tax guy. Me, I'm poor, so I just use TaxAct.

You never answered my thoughts on whether or not you think you are living well? If that plasma screen is doing right by you. I assume you still think it's just not enough? I have a question... If you got to keep all your money, and were making twice as much as you could ever have imagined making in your life, would you be satisfied? Regardless of where the rest of the money went?

If the answer is "yes", proceed.

If you answered "yes", then how do you know that what you are making now ISN'T enough? I personally have never had a concept of what "enough" would be, and so I keep my priorities in line with reality. I have never thought I was paying someone else's bills to a self-debilitating effect, but I guess I am not surrounded with gold-chain-wearing welfare gangsters like yourself.

If you don't answer anything else, just give me one straight answer on this: "How much net wealth would you have to make before you had enough, and simply didn't have to care about the rest of it?"

Sorry, two things... I'm still waiting to know why you think Adrian Rogers is some sort of person we should want to listen to in regards to government fiscal policy. Do you have great respect for the man? You, a Florida doctor, for some reason exalting a southern Baptist who thinks slavery has been overly maligned?

Can you support your original post without simply saying, "It's self-explanatory?"

"I'm still waiting to know why you think Adrian Rogers is some sort of person we should want to listen to in regards to government fiscal policy. Do you have great respect for the man? You, a Florida doctor, for some reason exalting a southern Baptist who thinks slavery has been overly maligned?
...
Can you support your original post without simply saying, "It's self-explanatory?" "

I get it.. the point of the quote that Ranger is making. I'm going to abstract meaning from it now. I think that it means everyone has equal opportunity to succeed or fail in life, and that we shouldn't mess with that delicate balance. Personally I believe it's a naive and overly optimistic view of life and humanity in general.

Here's why:

Life isn't fair. We DO NOT all have equal opportunities to work hard and improve our situation. Each of us is a different person, in different situations with different opportunities to succeed, some better then others. To assume that the child born of a homeless woman has the same opportunity to work hard and improve their situation as someone born into a middle class household is just silly.

Standing on the shoulders of the weak. Working hard to improve ones situation often involves willfully disfranchising someone else of their opportunity to improve their situation. This behavior is built right into our species, and it has it's place, but even our own basic instincts need a "check" on them to make sure they don't go too wild, putting our own survival in question. Thankfully, we have some pretty intelligent people to overcome this often-times overactive self-preservation instinct. Luckily for us, we're human beings and have the forethought and creativity to overcome even our own weaknesses.

No man is an island. Regardless of what you might think, all people, no matter how successful, depend on someone else. Not to get too philosophical, but humanity is all linked with each other in some way or another. It is in our best interests that humanity succeeds. Everyone's personal belief on what success means is different, and that diversity of belief itself is part of our incredible ability to sustain ourselves as a species.

The nobility of failure. Contrary to popular belief, saving someone from themselves is part of the growing up process, it's part of regular parenting. Growing up, your mom or dad might let you play out on the cement playground, knowing full well your risk of skinning your knee, but surely would do everything they could to stop you from playing on the freeway. If you think that willfully allowing people to fail at life is somehow akin to some noble evolutionary process, you might want to check your morality at the door.

if you give your political opinion, which we all know by now, at every possible opportunity, you should probably be prepared for others to give theirs also. i would still really like to see the origin of your pelosi statement that was in this thread or the other. ; )

I'm glad that you don't want people to fail, so lets just say that taxes and other restrictions and divisions of wealth insure that there is enough success left in the world once you are done. I'm guessing you glossed over my part about your success being at the cost of someone elses success. Humanity is a funny thing, we live in a world of limitations, but because of our very nature, we like to imagine ourselves in a world full of limitless possibilities.

"What one person receives without working for" - Like inheiting a fortune somehow? Especially when you're an airhead celebrity who doesn't even offer enteraintment back to the masses... ;)

That aside, I'd just like to offer my view from living in the UK, with our social secrutiy and nation healthcare systems.

There are both good and bad points to each.

We have social security for people out of work, and various sorts of benefits. These can be both fundamental to the poeple that actually need them, and they can be abused by the people that don't. I've had close experiences with both.

Being supportted when made suddenly redudant at work, especially if you're an older worker who finds it increasingly hard to find employment.

Or knowing someone who got thier new born son two birth certificates, so he could 'sign on' twice.

This system has also lead to second and third generation famailies, who have fallen into the 'welfare state' mindset, and when asked at school what they're going to be when they grow up, reply with "On the dole, like my Father and Grand father. It's what we do, isn't it."

I've seen the good, and bad side of our healthcare system.

From never having to worry if myself, or a family member is ill or hurts ourself, as we can always go and receive the treatment we need

To knowing a nurse who tells stories of pregnant women who fly into the UK, just to give birth here. And Post Code lotteries for drugs, as we can't afford to supply everyone...

A lot of the problems with our current systems stem from mis management by present and previous governments. Who are more focused more on profits, red tape and targets, than actually providing a service.